Contacting authors by telephone increased response proportions compared with emailing: results of a randomized study
Contacting authors by telephone increased response proportions compared with emailing: results of a randomized study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.027
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Danko, Kristin J.;Dahabreh, Issa J.;Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
目的：本研究的目的是比较系统评价中包含的研究中电话呼叫与继续向未回复的作者发送电子邮件的回复比例和研究成本。研究设计和设置：在糖尿病质量改善干预措施的系统评价中，纳入研究的主要特征报道很少。我们开展了一项调查，要求联系作者提供更多信息。经过 3 次电子邮件联系尝试后，279 名作者中只有 76 名 (27%) 完成了调查。在这项研究中，我们随机分配未回复的作者通过电话联系与继续发送电子邮件，以比较这些策略对回复比例和研究成本的影响。结果：我们随机将 87 名作者随机分配为电话联系，89 名作者随机分配为电子邮件联系。电话联系提高了调查完成率（36.7% vs. 20.2%；调整后的风险差异为 15.6% [95% 置信区间：2.90%, 28.4%]；调整后的比值比 2.26 [95% 置信区间：1.10, 4.76]），但需要更多的时间来完成（总共 20 小时与 10 小时；每个随机作者 14 分钟与 7 分钟；每个随机作者 26 分钟与 7 分钟）。 4 周），且费用更高（总干预成本为 504 加元，而电话和电子邮件组分别为 252 加元）。结论：与电子邮件相比，通过电话联系纳入研究的无回复作者增加了回复，但需要更多的研究时间且成本更高。 (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. 保留所有权利。
Objective: The aim of the study was to compare response proportions and research costs of telephone calling vs. continued emailing nonresponding authors of studies included in a systematic review.Study Design and Setting: Key features of included studies were poorly reported in a systematic review of diabetes quality improvement interventions. We developed a survey to request additional information from contact authors. After three email contact attempts, only 76 of 279 authors (27%) had completed the survey. In this study, we randomly assigned nonresponding authors to contact by telephone calling vs. continued emailing to compare the effect of these strategies on response proportions and research costs.Results: We randomized 87 authors to telephone and 89 to email contact. Telephone contact increased survey completion (36.7% vs. 20.2%; adjusted risk difference of 15.6% [95% confidence interval: 2.90%, 28.4%]; adjusted odds ratio 2.26 [95% confidence interval: 1.10, 4.76]) but required more time to deliver (20 vs. 10 hours in total; 14 vs. 7 minutes per randomized author; 26 vs. 4 weeks), and cost more (total intervention cost of $504 Canadian dollars vs. $252 for the telephone and email arm, respectively).Conclusion: Contacting nonresponding authors of included studies by telephone increased response compared with emailing but required more investigator time and had higher cost. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.